IMPORTANT POINT
The Administrative Tribunal has failed to apply ratio laid down in Direct Recruits case (1990) 2 SCR 900 in fixing inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotee recruits to the post of Asstt. Director of Industries so its order is liable to be set aside. The appellants direct recruits are entitled to get their seniority owner ad-hoc promotees in this case.

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative dated 24th July, 1992 in Original Application No. 894 of 1988. The appellants are the direct recruits as Assistant Director of Industries, they having been appointed on 29.09.1980 through the process of selection conducted by the Public Service Commission. The respondents are the ad-hoc promotees to the post of Assistant Director, they having been promoted on 27.9.1980. The inter se seniority between these two groups of appointees is the subject matter of controversy in this appeal.

3. The State of Madhya Pradesh had framed a set of Rules called Madhya Pradesh State Industries (gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the recruitment Rules of 1965 ). Under the said Rules, 50 per cent posts of Assistant Director of Industries were to be filled by direct recruitment and balance 50 per cent by promotion. The aforesaid Rule was replaced by a new set of Rules called Madhya Pradesh State Industries (gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the recruitment Rules of 1985 ). Both these Rules though provide for the mode of recruitment to the post of Assistant Director of Industries as well as the procedure therefor, but do not contain any provision for determination of inter se seniority between a direct recruit and a promotee. Therefore the said seniority had to be determined in accordance with the general principle.

4. Though the principle has been authoritatively laid down by Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1, commonly called the Direct Recruits Case, but yet very often the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals have been committing the mistake in applying ratio of this case. In the case in hand the Administrative Tribunal has failed to apply the ratio laid down in Direct Recruits Case and as such has committed an error.

5. Under the Recruitment Rules, 1965 no appointment to the service could be made except after selection by one of the methods of recruitment specified in Rule 6. So far as the direct recruitment is concerned the selection has to be made by the Public Service Commission after interviewing the candidates as provided under Rule 11 and then the Commission forwards a list to the Government arranging the persons in order of merit as provided in Rule 12 and finally the Government makes the appointments from the said list. So far as the appointment to the service by promotion is concerned, under Rule 13 a preliminary selection committee is constituted which committee considers the cases of all eligible persons as provided under Rule 14 and finally a list of suitable persons is prepared by the said committee under Rule 15. The selection is made on the basis of merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority and thereafter the names of the officers included in the list are arranged in order of seniority. The list thus prepared is forwarded to the Public Service Commission as provided under Rule 16 and only after approval of the Commission under Rule 17, it forms the selection list for promotion. The State Government then makes appointments from the select list as provided in Rule 18. Admittedly the appellants who are direct recruits had been appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Recruitment Rules, whereas the promotee respondents had not been appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed for promotion under the Recruitment Rules. A bare look at the letter of appointments of the respondents dated 27.9.1980 clearly indicate that the appointments had been made in anticipation of the approval of the Public Service Commission and the appointments were until further orders. Thus the appointments of the respondents on 27.9.1980 was de-horse the rules and though the said respondents bei